Re: pipelining setting

Lee <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 6/29/13, Fabian Keil <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/28/13, Robert Max Jackson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >     For Privoxy version 3.0.21, after rereading sections 6.5 of
> >> > config.txt on tolerate-pipelining repeatedly, I cannot figure out
> >> > which setting, 0 or 1, tolerates pipelining.  (I fear the
> >> > documentation here is completely ambiguous, at least for those not
> >> > familiar with whatever linguistic assumptions would make it
> >> > unambiguous.)
> >> >
> >> >     Could someone clarify?
> >>
> >> 0: privoxy does not handle pipelined requests
> >> 1: privoxy attempts to handle pipelined requests from the client (eg.
> >> firefox)
> >>
> >> #  Effect if unset:
> >> #
> >> #      If Privoxy receives more than one request at once, it
> >> #      terminates the client connection after serving the first one.
> >>
> >> I'm so used to 1 is the same thing as "set" and 0 is "clear" or
> >> "unset" that it's hard for me to imagine someone not knowing that --
> >> assuming that is the problem with the documentation.
> >>
> >> How would you change the documentation to make it clear that
> >> 0 = client pipelining is not allowed
> >> 1 = client pipelining allowed
> >
> > I suppose we could change "This option lets Privoxy tolerate
> > pipelining." to something like "Setting this directive to 1 lets ...".
> 
> What do you think of changing the name to "allow-pipelining"?

My impression is that it wouldn't have helped Robert and I'm
not aware of anyone else having trouble with the name of the
directive, either.

> tolerate roughly equals put up with; as in you might not like it but
> you will put up with it.  So while I will tolerate my son staying up
> until 4am and sleeping until noon, he is not allowed to make enough
> noise to wake me up :)  Changing the name to "allow-pipelining" might
> make the purpose of the keyword a bit clearer.

Given that Privoxy still doesn't pipeline outgoing requests I think
"put up with" is appropriate.

> >> Fabian - is this bit correct?
> >>
> >> #  Default value:
> >> #
> >> #      None
> >>
> >> sure looks like the default is 0
> >
> > In the config file "None", "Unset" and "0" currently refer to the same
> > numeric default value. I wouldn't be opposed to consistently using "0".
> 
> 0 would be better.  None implies neither 0 or 1
> Want me to do it?  Changes would be to current/doc/source/p-config.sgml
> - right?

p-config.sgml is right and I agree that using a numerical default value
would be more appropriate, so feel free to change it.

Fabian

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.

http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev

_______________________________________________
Ijbswa-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ijbswa-developers

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (FreeBSD)
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=Bxps
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----